W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: HTML5 feedback from prominent designers

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:57:16 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909031757g38924174u57abb91c38c371f8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In this case we're okay, since it's only by reading the spec that I
>>>> came to the wrong conclusion.  ^_^  I, and many other people,
>>>> immediately assume that <aside> *is* appropriate for sidebars when we
>>>> see its name.  I just want to make sure that reading the spec doesn't
>>>> disabuse anyone of that correct notion, like it obviously has.
>>>
>>> But that still means that people miss the fact that you can use
>>> <aside> to mark up footnotes and other types of in-flow asides.
>>
>> Do we have any evidence that people are missing this fact, though?
>
> Didn't several people (you included) say that the reaction many people
> had to the <aside> element was that it was for the page sidebar, like
> <header> was for the page header and <footer> the page footer?

Indeed, when talking about overall page structure.  I don't know if
it's safe to assume that we authors think it's *only* good for
sidebars.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 00:58:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT